25 October, 2010
Sky News AM Agenda
Ashleigh Gillon and Dr Mike Kelly AM MP
25 October 2010
8:30am
E & OE
Subjects: Nielson poll, Labor Party policy agenda, Murray-Darling Basin plan, new detention facilities, inquiry into financial services, John Howard’s book
ASHLEIGH GILLON:
Good morning and welcome to AM Agenda, I’m Ashleigh Gillon. The latest opinion poll out today shows Labor is leaking support to the Greens and suggests the Government is struggling to sell some of its key policies to voters. On the question of the War in Afghanistan and Labor’s decision to allow asylum seeker children into communities, slightly more voters oppose the Government’s stance than support it. Public opinion about a carbon price and whether to prioritise farmers or the environment when it comes to the Murray-Darling Basin is also pretty much split down the middle. Joining me to help digest the numbers this morning is the Parliamentary Secretary for Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry, Mike Kelly, and the Manager of Opposition Business in the Senate, Mitch Fifield. Good morning to you both.
MIKE KELLY:
Morning Ashleigh.
MITCH FIFIELD:
Morning Ashleigh.
GILLON:
Mike Kelly let’s start with you. We see that in the primary vote, the Greens are up to 14%, Labor is down to 34%. Why do you think your Party is leaking support to the Greens?
KELLY:
Ashleigh, we’re early in the election cycle. This is a time when of course the Government has got to tackle serious issues and work on very important policy agendas for this nation. There will be a long process associated with those, whereby we will be explaining those policies and entering into consultation. So it’s not surprising in these early days, when you’re at the beginning of tackling some of these large policy issues. But certainly, we’re in the business of getting on with government. Our focus is on making the right decisions and getting on with the things that need to be done for the future of this country.
GILLON:
Well as you go through that process and make those decisions, is there a push on from the left faction of the Party for the Government to embrace a shift to the left on social policies?
KELLY:
Well, we’re a dynamic Party that’s always looking to improve the way it does business, always looking to analyse our policy agendas and take the feedback from the community and our members. That’s an ongoing process that keeps this Party a rich one in terms of how it thinks through policy agendas and how it reflects the interests of the nation.
GILLON:
But it wouldn’t surprise you that the left faction of the Party is looking to have a shift to the left in the Party in order to scrape back some of that support we’ve seen go to the Greens?
KELLY:
Well in the way the Party organises itself you see great reflections of community issues, community attitudes coming through those processes. It’s a great way for the Party to stay in touch with the community. And certainly we’ll work through these things in the normal processes of the Party through national conferences and the development of policy agendas. In the meantime we have a Government that is very much focussed on dealing with the issues of the here and now. We’ve got some very important things to tackle for the future of this country, dealing with our health, our skills issues, rolling out the National Broadband Network, tackling water issues in this country. These are important things, we must get on with those and we are.
GILLON:
I do want to get to some of those issues shortly, but first, Mitch Fifield, the Coalition obviously thinks Labor has already shifted to the left. We’ve heard various members of your Party accusing the Government of being the most left-wing since Whitlam, claiming that Bob Brown, the Greens leader is now the co-Prime Minister. Isn’t that just a bit of a fear campaign on behalf of the Coalition?
FIFIELD:
Not at all. I think we’ve seen the confirmation of Labor shifting to the left in the gathering at the weekend of the national left faction of the Australian Labor Party. This is a Government that doesn’t have an agenda. That’s reflected in today’s opinion polls, where, on a number of policy areas, the public is pretty evenly split. And I think that’s because it’s entirely unclear in a lot of policy areas what the Government’s plan is. We find ourselves in the quite bizarre and sad situation where Dougie Cameron is in effect the thought leader of the Australian Labor Party. Where Dougie Cameron is saying that the Labor Party has to stand for something. And that is a very concerning set of circumstances, when you have Doug Cameron as the person who is trying to push the direction that the Labor Party should head in.
GILLON:
Looking at your side of politics though, Mitch, on a two Party preferred basis, the Coalition has edged slightly ahead, 51 to 49%, so it’s good news for you there. But when it does come to which leader, between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, is more popular and has the highest approval rating, Julia Gillard has boosted her lead over Tony Abbott. Why is it, do you think, that Mr Abbott isn’t personally cutting through at this stage?
FIFIELD:
Well I think Tony’s numbers are pretty good for an Opposition Leader. Historically, Prime Ministers tend to head Opposition Leaders. But I think Tony does have cut-through. That was demonstrated at the election, where the swing was clearly away from the Government, where it was the Government that was shedding its seats. And we’ve also seen a consistent Nielson poll today, where the vote is still shifting away from the Government. So I think Tony’s been very effective in pointing out the fact that this Government doesn’t have a clear and coherent plan in relation to climate change. That this Government is all over the place in relation to the mining tax; do they have a deal with the three mining companies or don’t they? We just don’t know. What’s their plan for stopping the boats? Tony has been cutting through on these issues, and we’re still looking and waiting for the Government’s response.
GILLON:
Well one of those issues, Mike Kelly, is one that you mentioned before, which is the water issue. In this poll, when we saw the question was asked of voters, do they think farmers or the environment should be prioritised, we saw that a slight majority said that farmers should be. That’s not the Government’s position. In your portfolio, of course, you must be very aware that farmers are still extremely upset about the way Labor has handled this whole saga. Is there any progress at all, or is there still a bit of a standstill on this issue?
KELLY:
Ashleigh, this has been a process that’s involved the independent authority putting forward some information, that it’s the beginning of a long process that they are engaged in. The Government, of course, is very observant of what’s going on, and concerned about the issues that affect our rural communities. But it’s not just a simple question of the environment or agriculture, the two do relate to each other. We know that environmental flows have a big impact, for example, on the situation of salinity and acidification in the lower lakes which has devastated dairy farming down there. Healthy estuaries are very important for our fishing industry, and of course, environmental flows do have a huge impact on the tourism industry right through the Murray-Darling Basin. So there are lots of economic interests at stake with this. We have achieved some great outcomes that I have personally observed from the environmental water applications, which have boosted tourism in areas like the Hattah Lakes. But we do have to make sure that we are focussing on making sure that our farmers can survive in dry conditions, looking towards efficiencies and productivity outcomes there to contribute to restoring health to the rivers at the same time. It’s a difficult challenge, but it is very important that we get the balance right. At the end of the day, what the objective is, is to achieve sustainable extraction limits. How we get there is open to debate.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield, we saw over the weekend, Barnaby Joyce warned that Tony Windsor could be the Government’s fall guy when it comes to water, because he’s head of that Parliamentary Committee. After he sided with Labor, though, just after the election, do you really care if that’s how it works out?
FIFIELD:
Well Tony Windsor’s a pretty canny guy, and I think he can probably look after himself fairly well. But Barnaby does raise the question, what really is the purpose of this parliamentary committee that Tony Windsor is chairing? It’s essentially a piece of window dressing to cover up for that which the Government hasn’t done. And that is to look seriously at the economic effects of a Murray Water Basin plan; the one which we’ve seen presented in recent weeks. This is a bizarre situation. We’ve essentially got Tony Burke being the Forrest Gump of water policy in Australia, just randomly stumbling through the scene, saying that this Report from the Murray-Darling Basin Commission really is nothing to do with him, that he’s just a disinterested observer. This Government has comprehensively mishandled the Murray-Darling Basin plan process. We’ve seen them mishandle the mining tax process. We’ve seen them mishandle the ETS. We’re going to see them mishandle the carbon tax process. We’ve seen them mishandle the Building the Education Revolution program. We’ve seen them mishandling roofing insulation. Whatever this Government touches, ends up being a disaster.
GILLON:
But Mitch Fifield, with that attack on Tony Burke, do you acknowledge that the independence of that Murray-Darling Basin Authority is something that the Government is trying to keep in play here? Isn’t that exactly what the Howard Government imagined when it first set it up in the first place?
FIFIELD:
Well, it is an independent body. But that shouldn’t prevent the Government of the day from actually putting a view. Putting a view that, for instance, the economic ramifications of the plan, as presented, would be disastrous. We haven’t heard the Government say that. We haven’t heard the Government actually say, ‘we’re going to stand up for, and we’re going to fight for those who are on the land. We’re going to fight to make sure that there’s a proper balance between the environment, and water used for agriculture.’ We haven’t heard Tony Burke make that claim. He went missing in action after the Report was released. He hasn’t visited any of the potentially affected communities, and we’ve seen Simon Crean have to step in and in effect become the de facto Water Minister.
GILLON:
Well, Mike Kelly, we know that you represent, of course, a regional area. Have you been hearing that the job losses are going to be far beyond the 800 or so that were mentioned in that draft Report we saw a couple of weeks ago?
KELLY:
Well certainly we need to remind ourselves that this is a process the Howard Government did establish, but they weren’t able to nail down the deal that we did to actually get the investment in not only environmental purchases, but investment in infrastructure efficiencies both on and off farm. $5.8 billion is going in that direction, working through the states to achieve that. Tony Burke, as the Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry Minister, prior to picking up this appointment, travelled extensively through the Murray-Darling Basin, is well and truly aware of all these issues and is working in close conjunction with of course Joe Luwdig, the new Minister in Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. We do understand perfectly what the potential impact on communities are, of reductions in water entitlements. We want to make sure that we can firstly achieve great benefits in returns to the river through efficiencies as far as humanly possible, and then look to see what other actions may be necessary in relation to the river generally. These things are being worked through very carefully, the Government has made no pre-judgement of where the Murray-Darling Basin Authority is going. The final plan has to be signed off on by the Minister, and with this new Parliamentary Committee, we’ll be looking at this objectively and seeing what outcomes are produced through the Murray-Darling Basin Authority’s consultation.
GILLON:
Okay, Mike Kelly and Mitch Fifield, stay with us. After the break we are going to look at another area where the Government is under fire over, and that is asylum seekers and the decision to set up two new detention centres in South Australia and WA. Stay with us.
Break
Welcome back to AM Agenda. Over the weekend we saw more angry scenes during protests over the decision to create two new detention facilities in WA and South Australia. Here are some of the views expressed in Northam, in WA:
FILE FOOTAGE:
FIRST PROTESTOR: These people are illegal.
SECOND PROTESTOR: Gillard has no idea, in her ivory tower…
GILLON:
Mike Kelly, people are obviously pretty angry over that decision. Will these protests make any difference, or is the decision to build a detention centre in Northam a done deal? And do you understand the community’s feelings that they’ve been left of any sort of consultation about this decision?
KELLY:
Well I think it’s understandable when you bear in mind there are two factors, I think, at play here. One is fear of the unknown, and secondly of course there’s the Coalition’s role that they’ve played in this, of stirring up public concern and spreading misinformation about these people, of really pushing the scare-mongering button on this whole issue. So it’s understandable that you’re starting from a bad base, whenever you’re talking about asylum seekers. But certainly we’re at the beginning of this process now. In situations where we’ve seen these types of options exercised in the past, communities have come to appreciate that it’s of economic benefit to their towns. We are talking about looking after children, after all, putting them in acceptable environments. Certainly the situation that occurred previously, certainly during the Howard Government, of putting kids behind razor wire was not something that I think any fair-minded Australian would like to see. But there will be economic benefits to communities from this activity. There is concern, I know, of whether this will put pressure on existing services, but the Government has very clearly undertaken to ensure that the relevant services and necessary services will be provided to meet any extra demand that is generated by having these people in their communities.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield, is that what the Coalition is doing? Scare-mongering over this issue? You’d rather that new detention centres built, wouldn’t you, than the overcrowding to continue on Christmas Island?
FIFIELD:
Look, we’re not stirring this up. I can understand why the local communities are concerned. They’re concerned that they haven’t been consulted, they’re concerned that there might be pressure on their local infrastructure, and they’re also concerned that we shouldn’t need these facilities in the first place. The need for these facilities is evidence of the failure of this Government’s border protection and asylum seeker policies. When this Government came into office, they started to soften their rhetoric in relation to asylum seekers. They abolished the Temporary Protection Visas, and we no longer have a situation where all processing is automatically offshore. It’s as a result of those factors that people smugglers have a good product to sell, and that’s why we’ve seen, in this year alone 2010, we’ve seen 110 boats come to Australia, and we’ve seen over 5,500 people arrive by boat. That’s a record for one calendar year. And by simply building new facilities, that is in no way going to deter the people smugglers from their trade. In fact, probably to the contrary, they’re going to think, ‘well they’re ready and willing to take more people from our boats.’ Now obviously we don’t want to see overcrowding, but the best way to stop overcrowding is to take away the product that the people smugglers are selling.
GILLON:
Well apparently the Government scheduled another meeting in Northam in WA next week, so I think we’ll hear more on this issue then. Later this morning we’re going to be bringing you Tony Abbott’s address to the Australian Industry Group, that’s going to be live. Also Joe Hockey will deliver a speech, he’s calling for an inquiry into the banking system. Mike Kelly, do we need that sort of inquiry into the financial system, or are things fine the way they are?
KELLY:
Well I think what we’re seeing at the moment is the complete inability of the Coalition to come to grips with economic issues. And poor old Joe Hockey’s been pretty clearly voted off the island. Malcolm Turnbull’s left him hanging out there, Tony Abbott hasn’t backed him, we’ve certainly seen Don Randall passing pretty accurate commentary calling it a “lunatic-fringe idea” when he was discussing how he might deal with the banks. Certainly I think it’s been very clearly stated out there by all the credible commentators that the sort of flaky thought bubbles that have been floated by the Opposition in these last couple of weeks certainly aren’t in tune with sound economic principles.
GILLON:
So Mike Kelly, there’s no need for an inquiry? You think the financial system as it stands is working okay?
KELLY:
Well certainly there’s always a process by which the Government will continue to analyse what actions or points of intervention might need to happen. The ACCC will look at issues, Graham Samuel has been talking today about looking at an inquiry in relation to price signalling, so there are things that we’ll keep a close eye on. But with the APRA reforms and the reforms of the previous Paul Keating Government, we’re in a very sound position, probably the best position internationally in relation to our financial sector. And certainly our focus too is on continuing to improve the position of consumers, which is why we’re trying to reinforce the situation in relation to the smaller lenders, and of course giving consumers they possibility and the choice of moving around and eliminating the impositions of these expensive exit fees so that they can shop around for cheaper mortgages.
GILLON:
But Mike Kelly, you said that the Government will keep looking at these issues, isn’t the best way to do that to have a proper inquiry so that you have all the information at hand?
KELLY:
Well the Government always has processes whereby it sits down with Finance and with Treasury, with monitoring the circumstances that are going on. And the ACCC as I mentioned has its own processes whereby it keeps monitoring the situations. At this stage, we don’t see the need for an inquiry. We are taking action to address the issues of improving the position of consumers and obviously market regulation is much more viable in Australia than it has proved to be in many other places in the world through the GFC. So we’ve come out well ahead of the rest of the world, it’s proved the basic underpinning of our financial management.
GILLON:
Mitch Fifield, is it just populist bank bashing we’re seeing from Joe Hockey in his calls for this inquiry today?
FIFIELD:
No, not at all. The point that Joe has been making over recent days is that banking licenses are issued by the Government, on behalf of the Australian people, and that there is a privilege which is attached to having a banking licence. When the Howard Government was in office, under Peter Costello, we introduced the Wallis Inquiry. And as a result of the Wallis Inquiry, we engendered greater competition into financial services, and also put in place very good prudential arrangements. This is one of the reasons we came through the Global Financial Crisis well. So I think that the idea of a Wallis Mark II to look at better ways of improving competition in the banking sector is a good one. The other side of things that you’ve got to look at in this discussion, which is set against the backdrop of interest rate rises, is what the Government can do today to help take upward pressure off interest rates. And the best thing that this Government can do, what they should do, is to stop borrowing money, and to repay the debt. If the Government did that, then that would make a contribution to lowering interest rates. That’s what they should start doing.
GILLON:
Well the Greens and the Independents have expressed some support for the call for an inquiry. So it could actually be something that goes ahead without Labor’s support. Well just finally, before we go, we’ve seen John Howard stirring the pot in recent days with his new book. The latest person to be offended this morning was Jeff Kennett, the former Victorian Premier. Mr Howard also in his book has opened up some old wounds with Peter Costello. Mitch Fifield, it doesn’t help the Party, does it, reminding everyone of the internal divides and rehashing controversial times from the Howard Government?
FIFIELD:
Well I think people who’ve served in senior positions such as John Howard, such as Peter Costello, have every right to write their memoirs. And I think in doing so, they’re actually serving a community purpose and providing some good reference material for history. But look, the legacy of the Howard Government is a shared legacy of John Howard and Peter Costello. Neither could have achieved what they did without the other, and I for one am going to spend every moment I can, whenever that legacy is criticised, defending it.
GILLON:
Mike Kelly, the Liberal Party isn’t alone here. We all saw that spat between Paul Keating and Bob Hawke over Hawke’s book a few months ago. Will you be picking up a copy of Mr Howard’s book this week?
KELLY:
No, I don’t have any trouble sleeping so I think I’ll leave that one alone. But look, we’re in the business of getting on with the here and now and trying to govern for the future of this country, and none of us are looking back over our shoulder, there’s just too much in front of us at the moment. We’re getting on with it.
GILLON:
Alright, David Speirs will be interviewing John Howard tomorrow about his new book, so we can all look forward to that. Mike Kelly, Mitch Fifield, thanks for joining us this morning.
KELLY:
Cheers Ashleigh.
FIFIELD:
Thanks Ashleigh.
ENDS